Western Railroad Discussion > DOT announces proposed rule making for crude, etc.

Phase out old cars more quickly and establish speed limits ....

DOT press release:

http://www.dot.gov/briefing-room/us-dot-announces-comprehensive-proposed-rulemaking-safe-transportation-crude-oil

USA Today article:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/07/23/obama-dot-proposes-tougher-oil-train-safety-rules/13036837/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 08:03 by ts1457.

There are some very interesting pieces to this. The continuous testing, in particular, will be a problem for the E&P folks. I'm not sure the rule on a million barrels [edited to correctly say gallons) of Bakken crude on any one train would be a big deal, though. That's a lot of cars (if it was barrels)

The twenty cars in one train doesn't mention whether they have to be adjacent. The original rule specified ten adjacent cars, I believe. The new brake systems / two way EOT / required DPU etc are a new wrinkle, too.

Definitely need to read the proposed rules in detail.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 10:22 by Lackawanna484.

The million gallon notification woul be any train more than 32 cars. The electronic brakes are already in use on some NS coal train sets and BNSF ore train sets, so there is no reinventing the wheel there.

The speed restrictions are going to be the issue, coupled with the mandatory upgrades or retirements. Slower trains will mean more crews, more new power and more cars required. It will be interesting to see what the backlog for upgrades becomes as the regulations become finalized as current new car production is backed up already. Wonder what the new brake system is going to add to the new orders alone.

Russ

Rollover protection? The shape of tank cars is due to change soon. Would that not require protrusions on top that would make a more squarish profile rather than rounded? Will add much weight, too. === === = === JLH

Won't do much for the price at the pump either,

NSTopHat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The million gallon notification woul be any train
> more than 32 cars. The electronic brakes are
> already in use on some NS coal train sets and BNSF
> ore train sets, so there is no reinventing the
> wheel there.
>
> The speed restrictions are going to be the issue,
> coupled with the mandatory upgrades or
> retirements. Slower trains will mean more crews,
> more new power and more cars required. It will be
> interesting to see what the backlog for upgrades
> becomes as the regulations become finalized as
> current new car production is backed up already.
> Wonder what the new brake system is going to add
> to the new orders alone.
>
> Russ


I think the " rail routing risk assessment" will also be a big issue with the major carriers.

rev66vette Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
>
> I think the " rail routing risk assessment" will
> also be a big issue with the major carriers.


Quite likely, given that politically sensitive Chicago, Kansas City, and New York state have already said what they want as a condition of allowing oil trains to pass through.

In Philadelphia, Mayor Nutter is looking in his seat cushions for extra cash, so a federally mandated "toll" for oil trains would be found money.

This interesting. Today I was in Salina, KS sitting by the yard the dirt con. on South side of road. Not rail related. A Hi-Rail pu. was on a clear North track and backed up to get on a track farther South and he called the roundhouse there and said the caboose track and one other one, don't remember what it was, was out of service. Then heard him say something about 40 MPH. After I had left the yard, the roundhouse was giving a train the go ahead to go West and he said 40 MPH. Him and the train crew was talking about that and wondering why and they didn't know what the deal was with it. The outbound conductor said, well I guess we will be going 40 MPH out bound. upkpfan

Good luck with the oil train tolls, Philadelphia is not a state!! Nor do they trump federal. O wait nor do they own the railroad. Good luck with that.

Posted from Android

CR4103 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good luck with the oil train tolls, Philadelphia
> is not a state!! Nor do they trump federal. O wait
> nor do they own the railroad. Good luck with that.
>
>
> Posted from Android

Rahm Emmanuel, Andrew Cuomo, and others haven't been shy about demanding a place at the table which makes decisions. I'd be exceptionally surprised if the President excludes them and their proposal for the railroads and oil companies to share the cost of enhanced first responder support.

My understanding is the routing decisions will be a cooperative decision with governments, not just the railroads in a back room. Deciding that no changes are possible. Put Chuck Schumer, Rahm, Andrew, Mayor Nutter etc at the table and get out your check book.

Wonder if these regulations will apply to trucks going through cities as well? Oh wait. Accidents, fires, spills, etc must not happen with trucks since mention is made of them. Maybe these same professional bureaucrats should encourage fuel to be trucked rather than shipped on rails.

All modes have accidents. The problem with additional regulation is that it never stops. Like one person said in one of the articles "it is a start". A start? A start to what? Banning these shipments altogether? Railroads are safer than they have ever been and it is in their interest to operate safely with or without government interference. We need to get back to balanced regulation, not knee jerk reactions.

Knowing how railroads normally detest recrewing trains prior to reaching the next crew change terminal the biggest challenge, for the railroads, is any 30 mph speed restriction. They might go for it in area's with greater than 100,000 population but not in rural area's. Any 30mph operation has the potential to require more crews, locomotives, tank cars, and probably track. The operating ratio's would take a hit and make railroads less attractive to investors and others on Wall Street. Of course BNSF is a privately held company but they also have the most to lose here, private or not.

As always happens there are more questions than answers. For example would a load of Colorado oil be exempt from any proposed 30mph speed restriction but Bakken crude oil not??


Allen



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 20:03 by bradleymckay.

The comment by the Sierra Club person is the USA Today article was totally unrealistic and completely irresponsible. No wonder the environmental community has so little credibility among many people today. Such wild demands serve no purpose except to play to a radicalized, unreasoning segment of the population.

The politics of this may get challenging. I can see, as Lackawanna484 suggests, politicians salivating at the prospect of buying shiny new fire equipment and other goodies as the price of their forbearance. Appropriate emergency preparedness is justified, but interject a hot button political issue like this, mix in overwrought bloggers, the punditocracy and talking media heads, and yup, it's time to get the check book out. The political class has never denied itself the opportunity to stand on the stump and tell the constituents, "See how I just got you this shiny new equipment?".

Follow the opportunity to the money and on to the votes. Never fails.

MC
Columbia, Missouri



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/23/14 22:51 by ironmtn.

ironmtn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The comment by the Sierra Club person is the USA
> Today article was totally unrealistic and
> completely irresponsible. No wonder the
> environmental community has so little credibility
> among many people today. Such wild demands serve
> no purpose except to play to a radicalized,
> unreasoning segment of the population.

The Sierra Club and the NRDC won't admit it publicly but they were so wrapped up in stopping both the building of new coal fired power plants (and trying to get older one's shut down) and the proposed Keystone XL pipeline that crude oil by rail flew under their radar. They are about a year late and are trying to play catch up.


Allen

On the plus side, the DOT didn't announce any Presidential executive orders immediately enforcing the proposals, and seems open to reasonable alternatives.

Looking at the issue in Lynchburg, I see a few complicating factors. Good, well maintained main line track. Had been recently inspected and found OK. Not a weedy track 15 mph slow order territory. Reasonable speed (35 mph?) at the time of the derailment. It's hard to see how the 40 mph or daily inspections rules would have made any difference.

What might have made a difference is a gauntlet track in the section where the train traveled along the embankment by the river. Unlike the Sewickley derailment of an empty ethanol train 200 feet from the river, the Lynchburg train was a few feet from the river. Keeping the train upright would have been a big help. Or a long catch basin in the most sensitive area along the river.

One of the great flexibilities of rail is the ability to direct a unit train to Eddystone PA or to St James LA or Houston in the matter of minutes. Locking in expensive infrastructure would limit that flexibility.

bradleymckay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Sierra Club and the NRDC won't admit it
> publicly but they were so wrapped up in stopping
> both the building of new coal fired power plants
> (and trying to get older one's shut down) and the
> proposed Keystone XL pipeline that crude oil by
> rail flew under their radar. They are about a
> year late and are trying to play catch up.

Agree. This has been my perception of the actions of both organizations. No agreement from me with their stances on coal or oil, nor on their tactics, but this does seem to be the case.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> On the plus side, the DOT didn't announce any
> Presidential executive orders immediately
> enforcing the proposals, and seems open to
> reasonable alternatives.
>

Agree.

> Looking at the issue in Lynchburg, I see a few
> complicating factors. Good, well maintained main
> line track. Had been recently inspected and found
> OK. Not a weedy track 15 mph slow order territory.
> Reasonable speed (35 mph?) at the time of the
> derailment. It's hard to see how the 40 mph or
> daily inspections rules would have made any
> difference.
>

Agree. I think the speed restrictions and the effect they have on system train velocity overall are going to be a key issue in all of this. And I'm guessing that this is where the politicians will lay down their markers.

> What might have made a difference is a gauntlet
> track in the section where the train traveled
> along the embankment by the river. Unlike the
> Sewickley derailment of an empty ethanol train 200
> feet from the river, the Lynchburg train was a few
> feet from the river. Keeping the train upright
> would have been a big help. Or a long catch basin
> in the most sensitive area along the river.

I think you might mean a guard rail, not a gauntlet track. Guard rails are the additional rails in the center of gauge coming to a vee at each end of the section, such as are seen on bridges. Gauntlet track is when a second otherwise parallel track runs for a distance aligned within the gauge of the other track. Guard rails are common; gauntlets are pretty rare today. A famous section of gauntlet track in the past was the Santa Fe's crossing of the Missouri River on the Sibley Bridge east of Kansas City.
>
> One of the great flexibilities of rail is the
> ability to direct a unit train to Eddystone PA or
> to St James LA or Houston in the matter of
> minutes. Locking in expensive infrastructure
> would limit that flexibility.

Totally agree. But routing flexibility might get challenged by these proposed new rules, with oil trains being forced into routings that are not the most desirable from an operating perspective.

MC
Columbia, Missouri

>>I think you might mean a guard rail, not a gauntlet track. <<

You're right, thanks for that correction.